2007 JTR(SC) 341
2007 54 AIC 147 ; 2007 5 AIR(Bom)(R) 331 ; 2007 AIR(SC) 2625 ; 2007 AIR(SCW) 4714 ; 2007 AIR(SCW) 4715 ; 2007 67 AllLR 795 ; 2007 3 AllMR(SC) 326 ; 2007 3 AWC 3021 ; 2007 6 BomCR(SC) 879 ; 2007 1 CalLJ(SC) 319 ; 2007 3 CTC 209 ; 2007 2 ICC 845 ; 2007 2 JLJR(SC) 147 ; 2007 4 KLT 773 ; 2007 25 LCD 1526 ; 2007 3 MhLJ(SC) 574 ; 2007 3 MLJ 383 ; 2007 2 MPLJ 403 ; 2007 2 PLJR(SC) 163 ; 2007 3 RCR(Civ) 454 ; 2007 4 Scale 335 ; 2007 9 SCC 431 ; 2007 3 SCR 936 ; 2007 KHC 3984 ; 2007 3 Supreme 408
2007(3) Supreme 408
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Mohan & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1321 of 2007
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16991 of 2005)
Decided on 13-3-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Uday B. Dube (for Kuldip Singh) Advocate.
For the Respondents : Sudhanshu Choudhari, Naresh Kumar, S.S. Shinde and V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Award u/s 11 of Land Acquisition Act was to be made within two years from date of publication of declaration u/s 6 of the Act and failure to adhere to time frame will be fatal to the award.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.11(a), S.6
(A) The Land Acquisition Act provisions govern the validity of land acquisition proceedings, with Section 6 mandating a declaration of acquisition intent and Section 11A imposing a strict two-year deadline for the collector to make an award from the publication date of that declaration. The impugned award, published well beyond this two-year window, fails to comply with the mandatory timeline, rendering it void. Any corrigendum altering the scope of acquisition does not reset or extend this statutory period.
(B) Key legal principles include the mandatory nature of Section 11As time limit, the exclusivity of the declaration publication date as the starting point for the two-year period, and the inability of courts to insert exceptions for subsequent modifications not provided by statute.
Facts of the case:
The notification under Section 4 was last published on 18.2.1999, and the declaration under Section 6 was last published on 28.2.2000. The award was passed on 4.2.2003, exceeding the two-year limit. The respondent argued that a corrigendum issued on 25.1.2003, reducing the acquisition area, justified extending the deadline, which was rejected.
Findings of Court:
The court found that Section 11As two-year period is strict and must run from the publication of the declaration under Section 6. Subsequent corrigendums do not attract an extension, and the explanation to Section 11A only excludes periods of stay due to court orders.
Issues:
Whether the award passed beyond two years from the declarations publication date is void under Section 11A, and whether a corrigendum to the acquisition area can reset or extend the statutory deadline.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 11As two-year period is mandatory and commences from the publication of the declaration under Section 6; failure to award within this period invalidates the proceedings, with no provision for extending the period due to subsequent corrigendums.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned award is quashed, and the impugned judgment is set aside without any order as to costs.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act provisions govern the validity of land acquisition proceedings, with Section 6 mandating a declaration of acquisition intent and Section 11A imposing a strict two-year deadline for the collector to make an award from the publication date of that declaration. The impugned award, published well beyond this two-year window, fails to comply with the mandatory timeline, rendering it void. Any corrigendum altering the scope of acquisition does not reset or extend this statutory period.
(B) Key legal principles include the mandatory nature of Section 11As time limit, the exclusivity of the declaration publication date as the starting point for the two-year period, and the inability of courts to insert exceptions for subsequent modifications not provided by statute.
Facts of the case:
The notification under Section 4 was last published on 18.2.1999, and the declaration under Section 6 was last published on 28.2.2000. The award was passed on 4.2.2003, exceeding the two-year limit. The respondent argued that a corrigendum issued on 25.1.2003, reducing the acquisition area, justified extending the deadline, which was rejected.
Findings of Court:
The court found that Section 11As two-year period is strict and must run from the publication of the declaration under Section 6. Subsequent corrigendums do not attract an extension, and the explanation to Section 11A only excludes periods of stay due to court orders.
Issues:
Whether the award passed beyond two years from the declarations publication date is void under Section 11A, and whether a corrigendum to the acquisition area can reset or extend the statutory deadline.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 11As two-year period is mandatory and commences from the publication of the declaration under Section 6; failure to award within this period invalidates the proceedings, with no provision for extending the period due to subsequent corrigendums.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned award is quashed, and the impugned judgment is set aside without any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Markandey Katju, J. — Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated 12.4.2005 in Writ Petition No.455 of 2004.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 4.2.2003 published by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of Renapur Medium Project at village Talegaon (Ghat). The High Court had dismissed the writ petition and hence this appeal.
5. The short point before us is whether the award was illegal in view of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
6. The date of last publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was 18.2.1999 (in Gazette). The last publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was 28.2.2000 whereas the award was published on 4.2.2003. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the award ought to have been published on or before 28.2.2000 which was the date of the last declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Learned counsel has invited our attention to Section 11A of the Act which states:
“11A. The collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse.”
7. In our opinion the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is clearly correct in view of the clear provision of Section 11A of the Act. In view of Section 11A an award has to be made within two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6. Failure to adhere to this time frame is fatal to the award, as the provision is mandatory.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 28.2.2000 the acquiring body had intimated to the Land Acquisition Officer vide its communication dated 2.1.2001 proposing deletion of some of the area which was proposed to be acquired. The original declaration under Section 6 was regarding acquisition of 155.26 hectares, but thereafter 107.99 hectares was proposed to be deleted. Hence the final area which was proposed to be acquired was to the extent of 36.8 hectares. Accordingly, a corrigendum to that effect was issued on 25.1.2003, and hence, it is submitted that the award dated 4.1.2003 was well within time. We do not agree.
9. In our opinion under Section 11A what has to be seen is the date of last publication of the declaration under Section 6, and not any subsequent corrigendum to the said declaration. The only circumstance under which the period between the declaration under Section 6 and the award can be extended is mentioned in the explanation to Section 11A which states: “In computing the period of two years referred to in Section 11A, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court is excluded.”
10. There is no mention in Section 11A that the period after the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the publication of any corrigendum to the said declaration has also to be excluded. We will be adding words to the statute if we put such interpretation to Section 11A, and it is well settled the Court should not add or delete words in a statute.
11. In view of the above reasons this appeal is allowed. The impugned award is quashed. The impugned judgment is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
**************